Topic: UK government bans Muslims Against Crusades
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #14,016
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15678275The home secretary is banning Muslims Against Crusades (MAC), a group that planned an anti-Armistice Day protest.
It had wanted to repeat a demonstration held last year, when it burned poppies near London's Albert Hall.
Theresa May's order will make membership or support of MAC a criminal offence. It is closely linked to seven other previously-banned groups.
The organisation, now dissolved, said "the call for Islam will never be silenced by any ban or proscription".
It had wanted to repeat a demonstration held last year, when it burned poppies near London's Albert Hall.
Theresa May's order will make membership or support of MAC a criminal offence. It is closely linked to seven other previously-banned groups.
The organisation, now dissolved, said "the call for Islam will never be silenced by any ban or proscription".
This is the group that burned poppies last year btw (the poppies are used to comemorate the war dead in the UK).
TTEH !penisGseqs joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later[^] [v] #249,831
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 41 seconds later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #249,832
Good, finally they're cracking down on these fucking fanatics. There's nothing beneficial about letting these nutters spew their bile wherever they want.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
TTEH !penisGseqs replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #249,838
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 35 seconds later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #249,840
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #249,842
@249,838 (TTEH !penisGseqs)
Invaded a remembrance day parade with signs saying delightful things such as "British soldiers burn in hell". If they want to bitch about the British presence in the middle east, so be it, but that's just too far.
Invaded a remembrance day parade with signs saying delightful things such as "British soldiers burn in hell". If they want to bitch about the British presence in the middle east, so be it, but that's just too far.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 33 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #249,843
TTEH !penisGseqs replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 34 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #249,844
@249,842 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
It's insulting, but not illegal. You can hardly stop a group of people expressing their opinion just because you find it upsetting or distasteful.
It's insulting, but not illegal. You can hardly stop a group of people expressing their opinion just because you find it upsetting or distasteful.
(Edited 35 seconds later.)
dw !AUIkTW/L46 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 28 seconds later, 34 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #249,845
TTEH !penisGseqs replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #249,847
@previous (dw !AUIkTW/L46)
"Inciting hatred against a person on the grounds of their religion" or race is illegal.
"Inciting hatred against a person on the grounds of their religion" or race is illegal.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 11 seconds later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #249,848
@249,844 (TTEH !penisGseqs)
What they're doing is clearly hate speech, which is illegal.
Don't you think that what they're doing is too much?
@249,843 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
They should be allowed to speak it, but crashing a remembrance day parade with disgusting slogans is too far.
What they're doing is clearly hate speech, which is illegal.
Don't you think that what they're doing is too much?
@249,843 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
They should be allowed to speak it, but crashing a remembrance day parade with disgusting slogans is too far.
dw !AUIkTW/L46 replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 39 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #249,849
@249,847 (TTEH !penisGseqs)
Well apparently what they where doing was inciting hate, and obviously on grounds of religion
Well apparently what they where doing was inciting hate, and obviously on grounds of religion
tek joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #249,851
@249,847 (TTEH !penisGseqs)
It isn't just that though, they're all trouble causers. They were the ones that were protesting the 9/11 memorials. They just like winding the EDL up.
It isn't just that though, they're all trouble causers. They were the ones that were protesting the 9/11 memorials. They just like winding the EDL up.
TTEH !penisGseqs replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 55 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #249,857
@249,849 (dw !AUIkTW/L46)
The same law also says "Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.
It's such a ridiculous law anyway. "Stirring up hatred" - what does that even mean?
@249,848 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> Don't you think that what they're doing is too much?
I do, but I don't think it's my or anyone else's right to define what "too much" is; while I find their speech offensive others might see it very differently. When you start telling people what they can or cannot say you find yourself on a slippery slope.
@previous (tek)
To be fair there's only ever trouble when the EDL show up. It's funny how MAC & Al-Muhajiroun are banned, but the EDL and the BNP aren't.
I think Theresa May is too scared of upsetting the Daily Mail readers.
The same law also says "Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.
It's such a ridiculous law anyway. "Stirring up hatred" - what does that even mean?
@249,848 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> Don't you think that what they're doing is too much?
I do, but I don't think it's my or anyone else's right to define what "too much" is; while I find their speech offensive others might see it very differently. When you start telling people what they can or cannot say you find yourself on a slippery slope.
@previous (tek)
To be fair there's only ever trouble when the EDL show up. It's funny how MAC & Al-Muhajiroun are banned, but the EDL and the BNP aren't.
I think Theresa May is too scared of upsetting the Daily Mail readers.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #249,858
Walter Calton !0VegJ9Jl.Q joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #249,860
So this MAC was basically the British WBC?
TTEH !penisGseqs replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #249,861
@249,858 (A)
Exactly. Ban everything and everyone who holds an opinion that differs from your own. This will create a harmonious society where everyone agrees with you!
Exactly. Ban everything and everyone who holds an opinion that differs from your own. This will create a harmonious society where everyone agrees with you!
TTEH !penisGseqs double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #249,862
@249,860 (Walter Calton !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
Yes. Except nobody here seems willing to stand up for the rights of MAC. No ACLU here.
Yes. Except nobody here seems willing to stand up for the rights of MAC. No ACLU here.
(Edited 16 seconds later.)
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #249,865
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #249,867
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 36 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #249,868
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #249,873
@previous (I)
I don't believe it's sufficient grounds to ban them or curtail their free speech rights.
I don't like what they're saying but they have a right to say it.
I don't believe it's sufficient grounds to ban them or curtail their free speech rights.
I don't like what they're saying but they have a right to say it.
(Edited 36 seconds later.)
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #249,875
@249,857 (TTEH !penisGseqs)
But all they want to do is incite hatred. You have to put some sort of limits on groups like these, even if you have to muzzle them a bit.
> slippery slope
I can't see it myself. The government has taken a hard line against racism and homophobia for quite a while now, and that hasn't led to anything. All it does is keep crazy extremists and hate speech in check.
But all they want to do is incite hatred. You have to put some sort of limits on groups like these, even if you have to muzzle them a bit.
> slippery slope
I can't see it myself. The government has taken a hard line against racism and homophobia for quite a while now, and that hasn't led to anything. All it does is keep crazy extremists and hate speech in check.
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #249,876
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 49 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #249,877
Given the role of communism in some of history's worst atrocities, should its advocacy be illegal?
(This question is strictly for enlightened Europeans, not Amerifats with their "free speech" poppycock.)
(This question is strictly for enlightened Europeans, not Amerifats with their "free speech" poppycock.)
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #249,879
@previous (J)
If a group of communists were being extremist and spewing hate speech everywhere then yes, it would be justifiable to ban that specific group. However, banning communism altogether is just wrong.
If a group of communists were being extremist and spewing hate speech everywhere then yes, it would be justifiable to ban that specific group. However, banning communism altogether is just wrong.
dw !AUIkTW/L46 replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #249,882
@249,877 (J)
> poppycock
good question but that word sounds pretty cool and as soon as i find out exactly what it means i will try to use it in as many sentences as possibe
> poppycock
good question but that word sounds pretty cool and as soon as i find out exactly what it means i will try to use it in as many sentences as possibe
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #249,884
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #249,886
@249,875 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Threatening the use of violence should be illegal, and directly calling for violence. But all this group have done so far is hold up signs, burn poppies and express their dislike towards the Army and servicemen. They're expressing their opinion, and as much as I find it distasteful nobody has a right to barge in and stop them.
> The government has taken a hard line against racism and homophobia for quite a while now, and that hasn't led to anything.
That's the problem, who gets to decide what opinions can and cannot be expressed? Why shouldn't racists and homophobes be afforded the same rights as everyone else? Just because their opinions differ from the majority's?
Threatening the use of violence should be illegal, and directly calling for violence. But all this group have done so far is hold up signs, burn poppies and express their dislike towards the Army and servicemen. They're expressing their opinion, and as much as I find it distasteful nobody has a right to barge in and stop them.
> The government has taken a hard line against racism and homophobia for quite a while now, and that hasn't led to anything.
That's the problem, who gets to decide what opinions can and cannot be expressed? Why shouldn't racists and homophobes be afforded the same rights as everyone else? Just because their opinions differ from the majority's?
Anonymous B double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #249,888
@249,876 (I)
> That's your opinion and I'm OK with that, but most people will disagree with you.
> most people will disagree with you
That's true. I wonder how long it will be before Theresa May bans me?
> That's your opinion and I'm OK with that, but most people will disagree with you.
> most people will disagree with you
That's true. I wonder how long it will be before Theresa May bans me?
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #249,889
@249,886 (B)
> Why shouldn't racists and homophobes be afforded the same rights as everyone else?
Because they want to take those rights away from those they hate.
> Why shouldn't racists and homophobes be afforded the same rights as everyone else?
Because they want to take those rights away from those they hate.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #249,890
Green !6PPj7P5Iag joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #249,895
@249,843 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
If you make a sign saying 'muslim soldiers burn in hell' you'll get locked up.
If you make a sign saying 'muslim soldiers burn in hell' you'll get locked up.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #249,897
@249,890 (B)
So you don't like people wanting to limit what extremists can do, but extremists wanting to limit what their chosen demograogic to hate to do is okay?
@249,886 (B)
I believe that a few of them were arrested during that incident, so they must've been doing much more than innocently burning a few poppies.
So you don't like people wanting to limit what extremists can do, but extremists wanting to limit what their chosen demograogic to hate to do is okay?
@249,886 (B)
I believe that a few of them were arrested during that incident, so they must've been doing much more than innocently burning a few poppies.
TTEH !penisGseqs replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #249,901
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> So you don't like people wanting to limit what extremists can do, but extremists wanting to limit what their chosen demograogic to hate to do is okay?
They can want whatever they like, that's the point of free speech, even if it's wanting something you object to very strongly.
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> I believe that a few of them were arrested during that incident, so they must've been doing much more than innocently burning a few poppies.
No, they were arrested for the poppy burning, and later charged £50 under §5 of the Public Order Act. This was all happening while the EDL's leader was assaulting a police officer, btw.
> So you don't like people wanting to limit what extremists can do, but extremists wanting to limit what their chosen demograogic to hate to do is okay?
They can want whatever they like, that's the point of free speech, even if it's wanting something you object to very strongly.
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> I believe that a few of them were arrested during that incident, so they must've been doing much more than innocently burning a few poppies.
No, they were arrested for the poppy burning, and later charged £50 under §5 of the Public Order Act. This was all happening while the EDL's leader was assaulting a police officer, btw.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #249,915
@previous (TTEH !penisGseqs)
> They can want whatever they like, that's the point of free speech, even if it's wanting something you object to very strongly.
What they do goes beyond "wanting", though.
> They can want whatever they like, that's the point of free speech, even if it's wanting something you object to very strongly.
What they do goes beyond "wanting", though.
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 18 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #249,921
Weren't the Britfags saying how few rights Americans have?
This is fucking pathetic.
This is fucking pathetic.
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #249,923
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #249,927
I agree with protesting against the glorification of war and the deification of soldiers.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 29 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #249,937
@249,921 (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)
I was expecting you to come in and attack the muslims, but this is good trolling too I guess.
@249,901 (TTEH !penisGseqs)
Wanting isn't the same as going out and burning things while chanting hate speech. There is such a thing as going too far.
I was expecting you to come in and attack the muslims, but this is good trolling too I guess.
@249,901 (TTEH !penisGseqs)
Wanting isn't the same as going out and burning things while chanting hate speech. There is such a thing as going too far.
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #249,938
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
It's not trolling actually. Some of the Brits here like to point out the lack of freedoms Americans have, particularly wrt free speech. I'm confused by that.
It's not trolling actually. Some of the Brits here like to point out the lack of freedoms Americans have, particularly wrt free speech. I'm confused by that.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #249,941
@previous (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)
In all honesty, everywhere has issues with what's okay to do or say and what's not. Nowhere is going to handle it perfectly most of the time.
So are you at least planning to criticise the Muslims? This just doesn't have the magic that your hate of islam brings to it.
In all honesty, everywhere has issues with what's okay to do or say and what's not. Nowhere is going to handle it perfectly most of the time.
So are you at least planning to criticise the Muslims? This just doesn't have the magic that your hate of islam brings to it.
buspuppie !!hkv8K5ZEY joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #249,943
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
What they are doing is horrible. It shocks me that anyone would consider this to be smart and justifiable act.
What they are doing is horrible. It shocks me that anyone would consider this to be smart and justifiable act.
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #249,944
@249,941 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
I thought it was obvious enough that Muslims are retards. Not feeling particularly hateful today. :-/
I thought it was obvious enough that Muslims are retards. Not feeling particularly hateful today. :-/
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w double-posted this 15 years ago, 31 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #249,945
@249,943 (buspuppie !!hkv8K5ZEY)
Who here is defending the acts? Or do you mean some other people out there?
Who here is defending the acts? Or do you mean some other people out there?
buspuppie !!hkv8K5ZEY replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #249,946
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w replied with this 15 years ago, 30 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #249,947
buspuppie !!hkv8K5ZEY replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #249,948
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #249,949
buspuppie !!hkv8K5ZEY replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #249,950
@previous (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)Okay. When you treat someone as if they cannot be responsible for their actions, it's disrespectful and it encourages those people to exploit society. It's exactly why I think that females should be given equivalent punishments for crimes.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #249,951
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w replied with this 15 years ago, 58 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #249,953
buspuppie !!hkv8K5ZEY replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #249,955
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 59 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #249,960
boop !Bz2S2BFeXI joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #249,981
Might look good on paper, ultimately it's a bad thing because it means the government now has a legal way to ban nice things.
Nexus !jNexusRe/. joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 33 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #249,989
@249,938 (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)
They do have free speech, as long as it doesn't hurt someones feelings.
They do have free speech, as long as it doesn't hurt someones feelings.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 4 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #250,042
@249,937 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
If you want to stop them saying things you think are "too far" you're basically making it illegal to insult or offend someone, which is ridiculous.
@previous (Nexus !jNexusRe/.)
This.
If you want to stop them saying things you think are "too far" you're basically making it illegal to insult or offend someone, which is ridiculous.
@previous (Nexus !jNexusRe/.)
This.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #250,053
@previous (B)
It's not all in black and white, it's not a case of either total free speech or complete authoritarianism, a reasonable middle-ground is possible and we more or less have that. Hate groups that actively go out and do these horrible things and encourage up extremism are too far, and do visible harm to society.
It's not all in black and white, it's not a case of either total free speech or complete authoritarianism, a reasonable middle-ground is possible and we more or less have that. Hate groups that actively go out and do these horrible things and encourage up extremism are too far, and do visible harm to society.
(Edited 16 seconds later.)
tek replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #250,056
Anjem Choudary is a fucking idiot anyway. He is as just right wing as the EDL (obviously on polar opposite views?). I can't wait for the EDL to be banned as well though as it can't be one rule for one, and one for another.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 36 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #250,066
@250,053 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
At the moment we have laws like the Racial and Religious Hatred Act. People have being arrested for proselytizing on the street, and there are multiple instances of people being convicted of "hate crimes" for saying that homosexual sex is a sin. There was another case in which a man was fined £300 for holding up a banner saying "Jesus Gives Peace, Jesus is Alive, Stop Immorality, Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism, Jesus is Lord", and another where a man who left anti-religious cartoons in a Mosque was given a five year ASBO and sentenced to a six-month term of imprisonment suspended for two years. These laws do more harm than good, they stifle legitimate free speech.
In a free society everyone should be allowed to express themselves. I don't like what they're saying but they have a right to say it.
Can I ask you something? What do you think of blasphemy laws? Considering this country is majority Christian, and most people would be offended by blasphemous statements.
At the moment we have laws like the Racial and Religious Hatred Act. People have being arrested for proselytizing on the street, and there are multiple instances of people being convicted of "hate crimes" for saying that homosexual sex is a sin. There was another case in which a man was fined £300 for holding up a banner saying "Jesus Gives Peace, Jesus is Alive, Stop Immorality, Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism, Jesus is Lord", and another where a man who left anti-religious cartoons in a Mosque was given a five year ASBO and sentenced to a six-month term of imprisonment suspended for two years. These laws do more harm than good, they stifle legitimate free speech.
In a free society everyone should be allowed to express themselves. I don't like what they're saying but they have a right to say it.
Can I ask you something? What do you think of blasphemy laws? Considering this country is majority Christian, and most people would be offended by blasphemous statements.
Anonymous B double-posted this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #250,067
Looks like they've raided Anjem Choudary's house too, not long after MAC were banned.
http://www.anjemchoudary.com
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/11/11/uk-britain-poppy-raid-idUKTRE7AA1KX20111111
http://www.anjemchoudary.com
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/11/11/uk-britain-poppy-raid-idUKTRE7AA1KX20111111
(Edited 49 seconds later.)
Anonymous B triple-posted this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #250,068
@250,056 (tek)
He is a fucking idiot, but all the banning will do is fuel their determination. They've been banned and an phoenix'd like 10 times now - they'll pop up in a few months under another name no doubt.
He is a fucking idiot, but all the banning will do is fuel their determination. They've been banned and an phoenix'd like 10 times now - they'll pop up in a few months under another name no doubt.
(Edited 14 seconds later.)
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #250,069
@250,066 (B)
As long as the blasphemers weren't going out and doing things like burning shit and calling for the death of all christians, then they should be allowed to do their thing.
I only really have a problem with them actually saying it when they do extreme shit like that, it's nothing but trouble. Is there really any pragmatic reason to let extremists show up at a parade and start yelling hateful slogans and burning stuff? Nutters like this are far more trouble than they're worth.
As long as the blasphemers weren't going out and doing things like burning shit and calling for the death of all christians, then they should be allowed to do their thing.
I only really have a problem with them actually saying it when they do extreme shit like that, it's nothing but trouble. Is there really any pragmatic reason to let extremists show up at a parade and start yelling hateful slogans and burning stuff? Nutters like this are far more trouble than they're worth.
(Edited 29 seconds later.)
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #250,070
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #250,071
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Mostly the same shit. They were banned last year under the name Al-Muhajiroun for "glorifying terrorism", which they deny.
@250,069 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> As long as the blasphemers weren't going out and doing things like burning shit and calling for the death of all christians, then they should be allowed to do their thing.
So the only problem you have with the MAC is that they've burned poppies? Because AFAIK they've never called for violence or the death of anyone.
They've held up signs which offended people, but if that's going to be made illegal then things like Richard Dawkins' bus adverts should be too, considering how many people they offended.
Mostly the same shit. They were banned last year under the name Al-Muhajiroun for "glorifying terrorism", which they deny.
@250,069 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> As long as the blasphemers weren't going out and doing things like burning shit and calling for the death of all christians, then they should be allowed to do their thing.
So the only problem you have with the MAC is that they've burned poppies? Because AFAIK they've never called for violence or the death of anyone.
They've held up signs which offended people, but if that's going to be made illegal then things like Richard Dawkins' bus adverts should be too, considering how many people they offended.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #250,074
@previous (B)
But the Dawkins bus adverts aren't calling for people to burn in hell or anything like that, though. They're not threatening anyone.
But the Dawkins bus adverts aren't calling for people to burn in hell or anything like that, though. They're not threatening anyone.
tek replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #250,075
@250,068 (B)
I think the point of the raids was to find incriminating stuff so they could v& him. I'd love to see the justification for the raids though. I bet it'll be as close to terrorism as they possibly can be without actually saying it. Mi5 and special branch love their dawn raids on heretics.
I think the point of the raids was to find incriminating stuff so they could v& him. I'd love to see the justification for the raids though. I bet it'll be as close to terrorism as they possibly can be without actually saying it. Mi5 and special branch love their dawn raids on heretics.
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 19 seconds later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #250,076
@250,071 (B)
> Because AFAIK they've never called for violence or the death of anyone
> "British troops burn in hell"
> "British troops burn in hell"
> never called for violence or the death of anyone
> Because AFAIK they've never called for violence or the death of anyone
> "British troops burn in hell"
> "British troops burn in hell"
> never called for violence or the death of anyone
TTEH !penisGseqs replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #250,078
@250,074 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
They offended just as many people; although the ASA ruled the advert didn't breach their guidelines they received 326 complaints, which was a record at the time.
If protecting people from offence is your goal, then it would hypocritical to censor Anjem Choudary but allow Dawkins' adverts to continue, as both cause offence. This is why I think it's silly to want to ban someone for expressing an opinion that some may find offensive; while I'm offended at the protests of Muslims Against Crusades, some are just as offended by Richard Dawkins.
They offended just as many people; although the ASA ruled the advert didn't breach their guidelines they received 326 complaints, which was a record at the time.
If protecting people from offence is your goal, then it would hypocritical to censor Anjem Choudary but allow Dawkins' adverts to continue, as both cause offence. This is why I think it's silly to want to ban someone for expressing an opinion that some may find offensive; while I'm offended at the protests of Muslims Against Crusades, some are just as offended by Richard Dawkins.
TTEH !penisGseqs double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #250,079
@250,076 (SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN.)
> "British troops burn in hell"
This is a statement of religious belief, not a call for violence or incitement to murder. He's said some pretty controversial things, but never directly called for violence. Considering he's a lawyer that would be a very silly mistake for him to make.
> "British troops burn in hell"
This is a statement of religious belief, not a call for violence or incitement to murder. He's said some pretty controversial things, but never directly called for violence. Considering he's a lawyer that would be a very silly mistake for him to make.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #250,083
@250,078 (TTEH !penisGseqs)
I don't care about offence, what I care about is hate speech, which can easily incite violence.
Also, if you see intolerance of extremists as bad, isn't their rabid intolerance of anyone who doesn't share their views just as bad?
I don't care about offence, what I care about is hate speech, which can easily incite violence.
Also, if you see intolerance of extremists as bad, isn't their rabid intolerance of anyone who doesn't share their views just as bad?
(Edited 46 seconds later.)
tek replied with this 15 years ago, 9 seconds later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #250,084
@250,079 (TTEH !penisGseqs)
Have you heard of the 'hell for heroes' thing he's started? If that's not the basis for inciting racial hatredism, I don't know what is.
Have you heard of the 'hell for heroes' thing he's started? If that's not the basis for inciting racial hatredism, I don't know what is.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 21 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #250,092
@250,083 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
I don't think hate speech should be illegal, unless it directly calls for violence or threatens the use of violence.
@previous (tek)
Yeah, they were planning another poppy burning demonstration again this year.
> If that's not the basis for inciting racial hatredism, I don't know what is.
The problem is almost anything could be interpreted as inciting racial hatred, or could be seen to "deliberately provoke hatred of a racial group". The BNP, EDL and Daily Mail should be the first to go.
I don't think hate speech should be illegal, unless it directly calls for violence or threatens the use of violence.
@previous (tek)
Yeah, they were planning another poppy burning demonstration again this year.
> If that's not the basis for inciting racial hatredism, I don't know what is.
The problem is almost anything could be interpreted as inciting racial hatred, or could be seen to "deliberately provoke hatred of a racial group". The BNP, EDL and Daily Mail should be the first to go.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous B double-posted this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #250,093
@250,083 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> Also, if you see intolerance of extremists as bad, isn't their rabid intolerance of anyone who doesn't share their views just as bad?
I do think it's bad, but that doesn't make me want to ban it. I just don't like the government restricting others' freedom of speech.
> Also, if you see intolerance of extremists as bad, isn't their rabid intolerance of anyone who doesn't share their views just as bad?
I do think it's bad, but that doesn't make me want to ban it. I just don't like the government restricting others' freedom of speech.
tek replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #250,097
@250,092 (B)
I agree with you. Radical far right groups deserve no place in society as ultimately, they always tend to victimize one group of people.
The EDL, BNP, National Front, Combat 18, all need to be illegalised. Their values are based upon falsehood I.e Sharia law. Perhaps a bit of research and these xenophobes would take heed and stop bandwagoning. I think xenophobia is the biggest downfall of English society and it makes me fucking sick. And that extends to Muslim xenophobes too, not just the white indigenous.
I agree with you. Radical far right groups deserve no place in society as ultimately, they always tend to victimize one group of people.
The EDL, BNP, National Front, Combat 18, all need to be illegalised. Their values are based upon falsehood I.e Sharia law. Perhaps a bit of research and these xenophobes would take heed and stop bandwagoning. I think xenophobia is the biggest downfall of English society and it makes me fucking sick. And that extends to Muslim xenophobes too, not just the white indigenous.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #250,102
@previous (tek)
I don't think the best way to combat extremism is to ban those who express extremist views. It won't stop them, it will probably have the opposite effect. They already feel persecuted and banning them wouldn't help that. Considering far-right groups are on the rise in Europe, it's fair to say our current approach isn't working.
I don't think the best way to combat extremism is to ban those who express extremist views. It won't stop them, it will probably have the opposite effect. They already feel persecuted and banning them wouldn't help that. Considering far-right groups are on the rise in Europe, it's fair to say our current approach isn't working.
tek replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #250,108
@previous (B)
Our governments been doing it for at least 10 years. White extremism is just as bad but the government are less strict on them for some reason.
Our governments been doing it for at least 10 years. White extremism is just as bad but the government are less strict on them for some reason.
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 4 hours later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #250,134
@250,071 (B)
> So the only problem you have with the MAC is that they've burned poppies? Because AFAIK they've never called for violence or the death of anyone.
Actually they have very close ties to afair 10 groups which have called for violence and death.
Then again, I don't know why the freedom to spew hatred is worth anything at all. It's a bad thing.
> People have being arrested for proselytizing on the street, and there are multiple instances of people being convicted of "hate crimes" for saying that homosexual sex is a sin. There was another case in which a man was fined £300 for holding up a banner saying "Jesus Gives Peace, Jesus is Alive, Stop Immorality, Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism, Jesus is Lord", and another where a man who left anti-religious cartoons in a Mosque was given a five year ASBO and sentenced to a six-month term of imprisonment suspended for two years.
Fucking good. Those people are all terrible, terrible cunts.
> So the only problem you have with the MAC is that they've burned poppies? Because AFAIK they've never called for violence or the death of anyone.
Actually they have very close ties to afair 10 groups which have called for violence and death.
Then again, I don't know why the freedom to spew hatred is worth anything at all. It's a bad thing.
> People have being arrested for proselytizing on the street, and there are multiple instances of people being convicted of "hate crimes" for saying that homosexual sex is a sin. There was another case in which a man was fined £300 for holding up a banner saying "Jesus Gives Peace, Jesus is Alive, Stop Immorality, Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism, Jesus is Lord", and another where a man who left anti-religious cartoons in a Mosque was given a five year ASBO and sentenced to a six-month term of imprisonment suspended for two years.
Fucking good. Those people are all terrible, terrible cunts.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #250,136
@previous (I)
> Actually they have very close ties to afair 10 groups which have called for violence and death.
Which groups are they?
> Then again, I don't know why the freedom to spew hatred is worth anything at all. It's a bad thing.
It's not worth anything, to you and me. That doesn't mean everyone else sees him in the same way.
> Fucking good. Those people are all terrible, terrible cunts.
Yes, in your opinion.
> Actually they have very close ties to afair 10 groups which have called for violence and death.
Which groups are they?
> Then again, I don't know why the freedom to spew hatred is worth anything at all. It's a bad thing.
It's not worth anything, to you and me. That doesn't mean everyone else sees him in the same way.
> Fucking good. Those people are all terrible, terrible cunts.
Yes, in your opinion.
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 19 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #250,142
@previous (B)
The complete list of banned groups is here: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/counter-terrorism/proscribed-terror-groups/proscribed-groups?view=Binary
All I seem to glean from this is that you want people to be allowed to say dickhead things in public. It's not a good thing. All freedom of speech would change is allowing those people to say those dickhead things. I don't want freedom of speech.
The complete list of banned groups is here: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/counter-terrorism/proscribed-terror-groups/proscribed-groups?view=Binary
All I seem to glean from this is that you want people to be allowed to say dickhead things in public. It's not a good thing. All freedom of speech would change is allowing those people to say those dickhead things. I don't want freedom of speech.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #250,143
@previous (I)
How do you know they have links to those groups?
> All I seem to glean from this is that you want people to be allowed to say dickhead things in public.
I want people to be allowed to say things in public and not be stopped by the government; whether they're "dickhead" or not is your opinion.
How do you know they have links to those groups?
> All I seem to glean from this is that you want people to be allowed to say dickhead things in public.
I want people to be allowed to say things in public and not be stopped by the government; whether they're "dickhead" or not is your opinion.
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #250,150
@previous (B)
> I want people to be allowed to say things in public and not be stopped by the government; whether they're "dickhead" or not is your opinion.
And is also correct. You want a negative change.
> I want people to be allowed to say things in public and not be stopped by the government; whether they're "dickhead" or not is your opinion.
And is also correct. You want a negative change.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 43 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #250,152
@previous (I)
> And is also correct.
In your opinion.
> You want a negative change.
Not negative, just a change. It might lead to people expressing opinions you deem "negative" though.
> And is also correct.
In your opinion.
> You want a negative change.
Not negative, just a change. It might lead to people expressing opinions you deem "negative" though.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
tek replied with this 15 years ago, 3 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #250,153
@250,142 (I)
It's a shame that most of the groups on that list are Islamic based and yet their are no home grown White nationalist groups.
It's a shame that most of the groups on that list are Islamic based and yet their are no home grown White nationalist groups.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 56 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #250,154
@250,108 (tek)
@previous (tek)
It's very hypocritical of them to crack down on Muslim groups but not far-right Nationalist groups.
@previous (tek)
It's very hypocritical of them to crack down on Muslim groups but not far-right Nationalist groups.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
tek replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #250,155
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,158
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,159
tek replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,162
@previous (I)
Why English far right groups are allowed to exist yet Islamic far right ones, are not.
@250,158 (B)
I.e Daily Mail readers.
Why English far right groups are allowed to exist yet Islamic far right ones, are not.
@250,158 (B)
I.e Daily Mail readers.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,163
@250,155 (tek)
I think it's that a lot of people are more scared by Muslim extremists than White nationalists, which is pretty stupid because they're both terrible.
@250,093 (B)
But what good comes from letting extremists do this shit? Sure you get to say that you have completely free speech, but they also victimise, condemn and incite violence against others. They do much more harm then they're worth.
I think it's that a lot of people are more scared by Muslim extremists than White nationalists, which is pretty stupid because they're both terrible.
@250,093 (B)
But what good comes from letting extremists do this shit? Sure you get to say that you have completely free speech, but they also victimise, condemn and incite violence against others. They do much more harm then they're worth.
tek replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,164
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
I'd say they're both pretty bad to be fair. I think I'm more scared of someone like Nick Griffin, having a say in how this country is run.
I'd say they're both pretty bad to be fair. I think I'm more scared of someone like Nick Griffin, having a say in how this country is run.
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,165
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cetGUdada8g
Fucking swine like this should be killed on sight. Theresa May should off ordered MI6 to persecute these pieces of shit.
Fucking swine like this should be killed on sight. Theresa May should off ordered MI6 to persecute these pieces of shit.
tek replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,167
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,169
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,170
@250,163 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
They're unpopular and some of the things they say are abhorrent, but they still have a right to be heard like anybody else.
> They do much more harm then they're worth.
To many people they're martyrs, fighting for the truth against unjust oppressors. Whether we think they do good or harm is irrelevant, it doesn't subtract from their right to speak freely.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. :D
They're unpopular and some of the things they say are abhorrent, but they still have a right to be heard like anybody else.
> They do much more harm then they're worth.
To many people they're martyrs, fighting for the truth against unjust oppressors. Whether we think they do good or harm is irrelevant, it doesn't subtract from their right to speak freely.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. :D
Anonymous B double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,171
@250,165 (SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN.)
> Theresa May should off ordered MI6 to persecute these pieces of shit.
For burning poppies and holding up signs?
It's ironic that those who died fighting for Britain died to preserve the very freedom that people want to take from groups like MAC.
> Theresa May should off ordered MI6 to persecute these pieces of shit.
For burning poppies and holding up signs?
It's ironic that those who died fighting for Britain died to preserve the very freedom that people want to take from groups like MAC.
(Edited 6 minutes later.)
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,173
@250,170 (B)
> I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. :D
Yeah, we're just going in circles here. :P
> I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. :D
Yeah, we're just going in circles here. :P
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,174
@250,171 (B)
> It's ironic that those who died fighting for Britain died to preserve the very freedom that people want to take from them.
These people aren't British. And if the people who died knew they were fighting for these scum I'm sure they would of thought twice.
> It's ironic that those who died fighting for Britain died to preserve the very freedom that people want to take from them.
These people aren't British. And if the people who died knew they were fighting for these scum I'm sure they would of thought twice.
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,175
@250,170 (B)
> To many people they're martyrs, fighting for the truth against unjust oppressors
To other extremists, perhaps. But since extremism is wrong, nobody gives the fuck.
> To many people they're martyrs, fighting for the truth against unjust oppressors
To other extremists, perhaps. But since extremism is wrong, nobody gives the fuck.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,177
@250,174 (SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN.)
> These people aren't British.
Why does that matter? Anyway Anjem Choudary is British, and so is Anthony Small.
> And if the people who died knew they were fighting for these scum I'm sure they would of thought twice.
If they died fighting for Britain they died fighting for the values we hold dear, which include freedom of speech and everything it entails.
@previous (I)
> To other extremists
Well yes, obviously.
> nobody gives the fuck.
Are you saying MAC doesn't have supporters?
> These people aren't British.
Why does that matter? Anyway Anjem Choudary is British, and so is Anthony Small.
> And if the people who died knew they were fighting for these scum I'm sure they would of thought twice.
If they died fighting for Britain they died fighting for the values we hold dear, which include freedom of speech and everything it entails.
@previous (I)
> To other extremists
Well yes, obviously.
> nobody gives the fuck.
Are you saying MAC doesn't have supporters?
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,178
100
Fuchs !!4KU9PSdLG joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 43 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,179
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. replied with this 15 years ago, 33 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,180
@250,177 (B)
> Why does that matter? Anyway Anjem Choudary is British, and so is Anthony Small.
That's debatable.
> If they died fighting for Britain they died fighting for the values we hold dear, which include freedom of speech and everything it entails.
ITT: TTEH reveals he is a terrorist sympathizer.
> Why does that matter? Anyway Anjem Choudary is British, and so is Anthony Small.
That's debatable.
> If they died fighting for Britain they died fighting for the values we hold dear, which include freedom of speech and everything it entails.
ITT: TTEH reveals he is a terrorist sympathizer.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,181
@previous (SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN.)
> That's debatable.
He was born in Britain.
> ITT: TTEH reveals he is a terrorist sympathizer.
stop trolling immediately
> That's debatable.
He was born in Britain.
> ITT: TTEH reveals he is a terrorist sympathizer.
stop trolling immediately
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,183
@previous (B)
Being born in Britain doesn't make you British.
@previous (B)
Stop supporting Al-Qaeda immediately.
Being born in Britain doesn't make you British.
@previous (B)
Stop supporting Al-Qaeda immediately.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,184
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. replied with this 15 years ago, 54 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,185
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,186
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 18 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,187
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,189
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. replied with this 15 years ago, 4 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,190
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. double-posted this 15 years ago, 23 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,191
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,192
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. replied with this 15 years ago, 31 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,194
tek replied with this 15 years ago, 12 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,195
@250,169 (I)
Combat 18, NF, EDL, BNP. I did already state this, and as Killer lettuce already said, we're going round in circles or are you just plain stupid?
Combat 18, NF, EDL, BNP. I did already state this, and as Killer lettuce already said, we're going round in circles or are you just plain stupid?
Fuchs !!4KU9PSdLG replied with this 15 years ago, 33 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,196
@250,187 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)That's a whole lot of implying you just put into that post, son.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,197
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,199
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,200
@250,197 (B)
Oh, that's good. If you were a labour voter I'd be very disappoint.
Oh, that's good. If you were a labour voter I'd be very disappoint.
(Edited 16 seconds later.)
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. replied with this 15 years ago, 12 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,201
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,205
@250,200 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
God no. I've never voted labour.
@previous (SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN.)
Nope.
God no. I've never voted labour.
@previous (SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN.)
Nope.
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,209
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 56 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,210
Green !6PPj7P5Iag replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,228
Being born in britain doesn't make you british. What makes you the nationality you are, is your family tree. If your past couple of generations live in britain, then you're british.
Anonymous U joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 27 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,231
COMBAT 18
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,237
@250,228 (Green !6PPj7P5Iag)
> Being born in britain doesn't make you british. What makes you the nationality you are, is your family tree. If your past couple of generations live in britain, then you're british.
Precisely.
> Being born in britain doesn't make you british. What makes you the nationality you are, is your family tree. If your past couple of generations live in britain, then you're british.
Precisely.
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,272
FAO: any non-British people ITT
Are the British people trolling us? Or are they actually full-on sheeple defending their government's abuses of their liberties? I mean if they are trolling they are doing a good job because I am seriously raging at the stupidity of their sentiments and arguments.
Are the British people trolling us? Or are they actually full-on sheeple defending their government's abuses of their liberties? I mean if they are trolling they are doing a good job because I am seriously raging at the stupidity of their sentiments and arguments.
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. replied with this 15 years ago, 45 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,274
tek replied with this 15 years ago, 8 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #250,424
@250,272 (M)
> hurr Durr doesn't understand points made
> implies generic Orwellian government
> misses point entirely
I'm sure there's plenty of colourful things to do online until it 'clicks' for you.
> hurr Durr doesn't understand points made
> implies generic Orwellian government
> misses point entirely
I'm sure there's plenty of colourful things to do online until it 'clicks' for you.